4.9 Conclusions
Research supports the classification of “Sativa” and “Indica,” but not their
nomenclature.“Sativa”(consistent with Lamarck’sindica, the NLD biotype) differs
chemically and genetically from“Indica”(consistent with Vavilov’safghanica, the
WLD biotype). Thesystematicsof these populations remains an open question.
Systematics adds the element of time to taxonomy.“Sativa”and“Indica”pre-
sumably diverged from a common ancestor—but when, and under what selection
pressures? One population evolved in low-warm-and-wet India, and the other in
high-cool-and-dry Afghanistan. Natural selection likely drove their initial
divergence.
Good ( 1964 ) and Takhtajan ( 1986 ) divided the world into“floristic regions”
based on the distribution of distinctive (endemic) plant populations. The borders
between thesefloristic regions were delimited by natural barriers (geographic and
climatic) that prevented natural plant dispersal. Most of India lies in the Indian
Region. Afghanistan is part of the Irano-Turanian Region (Takhtajan’s term; Good
called it the Western and Central Asiatic Region). Anotherfloristic region lies
between them, which includes most of Pakistan—the Sudano-Zambezian Region
(Takhtajan’s term),a.k.a.the North African-Indian Desert Region (Good’s term).
Then humans took over with artificial selection. In India, unpollinated females
were processed individually. Intentional selection of potent, high-THC individuals
was a straightforward process. In contrast, Afghani plants were processed in bulk,
with no selection of potent, high-THC individuals. Thus a millennium of selecting
different products—gañjā versus hashīsh—unintentionally drove divergence in
THC/CBD ratios. David Watson (pers. commun. 2012) stated that Afghani hashīsh
producers preferred certain terpenoids for aroma, and for physicochemical effects
on sifted hashīsh (e.g., the condensability of sesquiterpene alcohols). Consistent
with this, Hooper ( 1908 ) found the perceived quality and cost of three hashīsh
specimens from Kāšḡar correlated with their percentage of essential oil (i.e., ter-
penoids), andnotwith their percentage of resin (i.e., cannabinoids): Grade No. 1:
essential oil 12.7% and resin 40.2%; Grade No. 2: essential oil 12.4% and resin
40.9%; Grade No. 3: essential oil 12.0% and resin 48.1%.
Extensive cross-breeding between“Sativa”and“Indica”in the past 40 years has
rendered their distinctions almost meaningless in today’s marketplace. Plants
should be identified by their chemicalfingerprint, rather than characterizations such
as“Sativa-dominant,”“Indica-dominant,”or a whimsical strain name (Hazekamp
and Fischedick ( 2012 ); Hazekamp et al. 2016 ). Several analytical laboratories have
moved“from cultivar to chemovar,”and identify plants by their cannabinoid and
terpenoid content. These services include Strain Fingerprint™by Steep Hill Labs,
PhytoFacts™by Napro Research, Profile Testing by Werc Shop, and Know Your
Medicine by SC Labs.
However, as documented here, phytochemical and genetic research supports the
separation of NLD and WLD biotypes. Old landraces of Indian and Afghani
4 Cannabis sativaandCannabis indica... 117